14 comments:

I guess since their contracts are expiring that could be turned into a single decent player after 2010--though still one who is only worth the mid-level exception, which Celtics blog points out, Childress' established value was more when he balked at over 6 mil per year.

It's a real problem trading players: more players does not mean equal value. The problem with trading Joe Johnson remains, what do you get back? Draft picks are the prime temptation here because if you get a top three pick you stand a good chance of getting an equal-value player in return.

And the Hawks should trade Childress for draft picks or some up-and-coming youngsters rather than turkeys like Scalabrine and Allen. Don't insult us, Celtics. You ain't all that.

The problem in getting anything more valuable than a future draft pick (and even then, you're probably getting a low first rounder as Childress is attractive to good teams and vice versa) is that other teams likely know that Childress and the Hawks want to be rid of each other.

Also, Tony Allen is not junk. Not in general and especially not in contrast to the typical denizen of the Hawks' bench.

It is certainly true that Childress' value is affected in two ways by his bolt to Greece; yes, we can't see him playing for the Hawks again, and they need to get something for him; and his value to another team is certainly impacted by his recent actions. What's to stop him from doing this a second time?

It was unfortunate that Woodson could not effectively communicate the appropriate role to Childress and/or the JC could not accept it.

Woodson was right about Childress coming off the bench with this combination of players. Any second team has to have a mix of role players to replace the first team without a drop-off, and Marvin was (in 2007-08) not a consistent or versatile enough scorer--or even the energy guy a second team needs, the "heat-it-up now" player that makes the other second-teamers better (this past year, that was Flip Murray). Starting Childress would have teamed Marvin with an ineffective and pouting Zaza, rookie Acie, and the others who never came out (JJ and Bibby). (It is conceivable that Marvin could play such a role now, not that he necessarily would.)

Childress averaged 29.3 minutes per game in '07-'08, which must have put him near the top of the league's reserves in floor time. Needing to start when you're playing that much and there's a clear team need elsewhere sounds more like JC's problem than Woodson's to me. Considering the possibility of a bolt to Greece over it as the major issue, I am inclined to be less than impressed with Childress' commitment to a team concept-- as I'm sure any NBA employer would also be.

So I perhaps have not seen enough of Tony Allen, but I feel like I'm convincing myself that we won't get chicken scratch for Childress.

It's always been assumed that Childress was the perfect guy off the bench for the Hawks but, this probably won't shock you, I was always skeptical of that (and seeing Marvin improve his off-the-dribble and post-up game this year allowed me some after the fact validation of my skepticism) as Childress's offensive talents (rebounding, shooting the corner 3) would have worked perfectly well with the starting five who, prior to acquiring Bibby, weren't a great shooting lot to begin with.

Then the second unit's offsense could have run through Marvin, who is and was much better at creating his own shot than Childress, and possibly sped up his development.

Irrespective of starter/coming of the bench or minutes played over the course of the season, that Marvin, had he not been tossed in Game 7, would have played more minutes than Childress in the Celtics series despite the Hawks being outscored by 27.6 points per 100 possessions with Marvin on the floor versus 1.6 points per 100 possessions with Childress on the floor during the series suggests that Woodson had made one of his firm and fast evaluations and decided that Marvin was a starter/regular (whatever you want to call it) and Childress a backup. This is, I think, the same mechanism of thought that compels Woodson to replace Mo Evans with a starter (or Flip Murray) after a defensive breakdown whether Evans had anything to do with the breakdown or not.

I won't argue that Childress leaving is his finest hour as a teammate or mature adult but I'm empathetic regarding his desire for seeking out an opportunity for a greater role. Not that I'm convinced he's found that role yet.

First off, I would hope Scalabrine would be acquired just for his expiring contract which could be lumped with Speedy Claxton's to upgrade the team at the trade deadline. Any scenario where he's in the rotation for any reason other than multiple injuries chills me.

As for Allen, he'd be a genuinely above average perimeter defender (which I think would be a boon for the Hawks), would give the Hawks another player who's best served by an up-tempo offense (Maybe there's a tipping point at which Atlanta would actually begin to use this to their advantage?), and he makes up for his poor jump shooting by getting to the line a lot. He won't be more than a bench player but I think he'd be a useful one.

And as Bret pointed out, expiring contracts, in this economy, are like gold.Its a little cynical, but its interesting to consider what would happen if the Hawks were out of the race for the playoffs in the East, and they move Joe's expiring contract to a contender for some pieces.

I didn't mean to imply that Allen isn't an upgrade over West--no doubt he is. But what does he do that Evans doesn't? Evans is a better shooter without doubt; is Allen a better defender? Do they complement each other or replicate each other?

Allen is stronger and quicker than Evans so they should be able to complement each other defensively.

Offensively, Evans is best as a spot-up shooter and Allen is best at getting to the basket to finish or get fouled. Allen really can't dribble so his offensive game might not mesh well with the Hawks' stagnant half-court offense but, as I mentioned earlier, one might dream that his skills might push the team toward a faster pace that would take advantage of the frontcourt's athelticism.